3 ms·
Cheers to OpenAI who I'm sure is popping champagne that they actually got this garbage passed. I'm genuinely shocked that legislators don't see these models as
by Spivak 2y ago
Cheers to OpenAI who I'm sure is popping champagne that they actually got this garbage passed. I'm genuinely shocked that legislators don't see these models as sources of information -- there's no way they would pass a law requiring libraries certify that readers can't use any of the books for evil, but here we are. And weirder still criminally liable if someone checks out a chemistry textbook and cooks meth.
These models are really cool and novel don't get me wrong but they're self-reading books on their training data and ought to be regulated as such. But hey, if it means that some other state is gonna be the hub for AI I'm all for it.
- para_parolu 2y agoI would nit be surprised if this is lobbied from openai, msft or google
- laweijfmvo 2y agoHow/why is OpenAI immune to this law?
- Spivak 2y agoThey're not immune to the law, the law is just written so that all AI companies have to do all the bullshit safety stuff that OpenAI was already doing. Now to be fair OpenAI's safety stuff is actually useful but it's useful for "programmable customer service agent" and companies that want to have a chatbot and not have it say fuck. But those tweaks aren't free, and come at the expense of model performance. So OpenAI pushed regulators hard on this and now everyone has to has to pay the same cost wooo! It means you can't chip away at OpenAI's market by being better than them at specialized tasks because you have a raw completely unaligned non-instruction tuned model you use for say generating code. Because that model could be used to write viruses oohhh spooky.